It is a matter of common observance that a political system that establishes fixed and exclusive majorities and minorities does not provide an incentive to disparate religious, ethnic and cultural groups to forge closer ties among themselves.
Political parties that restrict membership on the basis of race, religion or sect produce fixed and exclusive majorities and minorities. Among such parties there are no shared national goals and ideals: Only sectional goals and ideals. Therefore, there is little incentive to evolve consensus on national political goals and objectives. No democracy can stabilize if its social base is fissured.
Political parties are the medium through which individuals are socialized and groomed to take part in democratic politics. While the party that obtains a majority should have the right to rule, opposition parties must be entitled to oppose it and be ready to provide alternative government. In an open political system, majorities and minorities should in principle reflect the result of an election. Consequently, permanent disability cannot legitimately be imposed on any section of the population to vote or compete for public office.
This is not possible in a system where political parties represent exclusive and narrow religious interests. In such systems, religious majorities can misuse the democratic process to tyrannize minorities. Equally, minorities can use the political party to preach separatism. Such situations are a recipe for communal strife and violence. Therefore, adequate measures should be in place to prevent majoritarian democracy as well as minority separatism from taking root.
In light of the above discussion, it is worth pondering if religio-political parties can legitimately be banned in a democracy. A categorical answer to this question is not easy to give, though some argue that, in fledgling democracies such as Sri Lanka, a ban on religio-political parties is justified, provided in the private sphere individual and corporate religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed.
In Western Europe, Christian democratic parties are an established fact. However, such parties subscribe to the rules of the game of democratic politics: Their membership is not restricted only to Christians and they do not uphold an ideology aiming at the establishment of a theocracy.
More importantly, they do not challenge contemporary human rights, women's rights and minority rights. The right to religious freedom for each and every individual is a principle they accept. In other words, they adhere to the separation of religion and state, and cater essentially to the secular interests of conservative sections of society.
In contrast, in the deeply-religious societies of South and South East Asia, it is far from clear if the rules of democracy are understood and accepted by religious and sectarian communities. Under the circumstances, they obfuscate membership in the nation with membership in a religious community. Consequently religio-political parties can be a dysfunctional factor in consensus building and nation building.
This realisation convinced Singapore to prohibit religious parties and to adopt comprehensive policy disallowing religious communities to behave as political entities. On the other hand, individual and corporate religious freedom is fully guaranteed by the Singapore constitution. As a result, Singapore has managed religious pluralism successfully.
Given the fact that religious loyalties have played a vitiating role in post-independence Sri Lanka, it is perfectly legitimate to ban religio-political parties. However, it is equally important that such a ban applies to all parties representing religious communities and racial groups.
Selective banning is morally unjustifiable and can be counter-productive to the integration and consolidation of the nation.
On the other hand, a democracy completely impervious to the facts of religious and ethnic diversity can marginalize the minorities even if the political system is constituted by open political parties. Therefore, it is important that the open, secular parties make specific arrangements for representation of religious and ethnic minorities in parliament and in sharing public office. Under all circumstances, a clear distinction must be maintained between the private religious beliefs and the public rights and obligations of an individual.
The writer is a visiting research professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. |
E-mail